sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Magnus Hagander-2
The new download pages that generate "copy/paste scripts" include sudo
in the instructions for debian and ubuntu, but not for redhat and
centos. That seems inconsistent :) We should probably be consistent
there, or is there a particular reason not to be?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Tom Lane-2
Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> writes:
> The new download pages that generate "copy/paste scripts" include sudo
> in the instructions for debian and ubuntu, but not for redhat and
> centos. That seems inconsistent :) We should probably be consistent
> there, or is there a particular reason not to be?

Can't see a reason not to include it on the Red Hat side.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Jonathan S. Katz-3
On 10/30/20 1:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> writes:
>> The new download pages that generate "copy/paste scripts" include sudo
>> in the instructions for debian and ubuntu, but not for redhat and
>> centos. That seems inconsistent :) We should probably be consistent
>> there, or is there a particular reason not to be?
>
> Can't see a reason not to include it on the Red Hat side.

+1. Doing a scan of other projects, it seems to be acceptable to include
"sudo" as part of providing installation instructions.


Jonathan


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Dave Page-7


On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jonathan S. Katz <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/30/20 1:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> writes:
>> The new download pages that generate "copy/paste scripts" include sudo
>> in the instructions for debian and ubuntu, but not for redhat and
>> centos. That seems inconsistent :) We should probably be consistent
>> there, or is there a particular reason not to be?
>
> Can't see a reason not to include it on the Red Hat side.

+1. Doing a scan of other projects, it seems to be acceptable to include
"sudo" as part of providing installation instructions.

Does sudo work out of the box on CentOS/RHEL 6? Otherwise I don't see a problem with it.
 
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Magnus Hagander-2
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:53 AM Dave Page <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jonathan S. Katz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/30/20 1:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> writes:
>> >> The new download pages that generate "copy/paste scripts" include sudo
>> >> in the instructions for debian and ubuntu, but not for redhat and
>> >> centos. That seems inconsistent :) We should probably be consistent
>> >> there, or is there a particular reason not to be?
>> >
>> > Can't see a reason not to include it on the Red Hat side.
>>
>> +1. Doing a scan of other projects, it seems to be acceptable to include
>> "sudo" as part of providing installation instructions.
>
>
> Does sudo work out of the box on CentOS/RHEL 6? Otherwise I don't see a problem with it.

It doesn't necessarily work out of the box on Debian or Ubuntu either,
it depends on what your starting point is.

For example, any of the minimal images that are popular these days
because of containers won't have sudo on debian, ubuntu *or* centos.
Whereas I think most/all cloud images do.

AFAIK it's in the default "standard" installs on RedHat since 7. For
Debian since 9. I believe Ubuntu has had it longer.

Maybe the fact that container images don't have it would actually be
an argument to remove it from the debian instructions rather than add
it to the redhat ones. But our target with these specific instructions
are probably more the "traditional server installs" anyway?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Dave Page-7


On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:09 AM Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:53 AM Dave Page <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jonathan S. Katz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/30/20 1:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> writes:
>> >> The new download pages that generate "copy/paste scripts" include sudo
>> >> in the instructions for debian and ubuntu, but not for redhat and
>> >> centos. That seems inconsistent :) We should probably be consistent
>> >> there, or is there a particular reason not to be?
>> >
>> > Can't see a reason not to include it on the Red Hat side.
>>
>> +1. Doing a scan of other projects, it seems to be acceptable to include
>> "sudo" as part of providing installation instructions.
>
>
> Does sudo work out of the box on CentOS/RHEL 6? Otherwise I don't see a problem with it.

It doesn't necessarily work out of the box on Debian or Ubuntu either,
it depends on what your starting point is.

For example, any of the minimal images that are popular these days
because of containers won't have sudo on debian, ubuntu *or* centos.
Whereas I think most/all cloud images do.

AFAIK it's in the default "standard" installs on RedHat since 7. For
Debian since 9. I believe Ubuntu has had it longer.

I think it's in the standard install on CentOS/RHEL 6, I just can't remember if it works out of the box for members of the wheel group or similar - which now you come to mention it, is the case on Debian 9/10, but not Ubuntu (and I'm pretty sure, not CentOS/RHEL 7+).
 

Maybe the fact that container images don't have it would actually be
an argument to remove it from the debian instructions rather than add
it to the redhat ones. But our target with these specific instructions
are probably more the "traditional server installs" anyway?

I would definitely say that should be the case - most people won't do their own container installs anyway, and those tend to be quite different anyway, as most containers won't be running systemd.

For the "most likely to work following a standard OS install" option, I think we probably should add sudo for CentOS/RHEL 7+, and remove if from the Debian 9/10 instructions.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Tom Lane-2
Dave Page <[hidden email]> writes:
> For the "most likely to work following a standard OS install" option, I
> think we probably should add sudo for CentOS/RHEL 7+, and remove if from
> the Debian 9/10 instructions.

My vote is to include sudo as a reminder that "this step needs root
privilege".  If you don't have sudo, you have to implement that some
other way, but you still need to do something.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure sudo has been in minimal Red Hat installs for quite
a long time.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Magnus Hagander-2
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 3:19 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dave Page <[hidden email]> writes:
> > For the "most likely to work following a standard OS install" option, I
> > think we probably should add sudo for CentOS/RHEL 7+, and remove if from
> > the Debian 9/10 instructions.
>
> My vote is to include sudo as a reminder that "this step needs root
> privilege".  If you don't have sudo, you have to implement that some
> other way, but you still need to do something.

I've done this.

The biggest downside is you can't copy/paste it into a system without
sudo. I guess a more advanced version could have a checkbox to turn
on/off the sudo part, but I doubt it's worth going *that* far.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Dave Page-7


On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:05 AM Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 3:19 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dave Page <[hidden email]> writes:
> > For the "most likely to work following a standard OS install" option, I
> > think we probably should add sudo for CentOS/RHEL 7+, and remove if from
> > the Debian 9/10 instructions.
>
> My vote is to include sudo as a reminder that "this step needs root
> privilege".  If you don't have sudo, you have to implement that some
> other way, but you still need to do something.

I've done this.

The biggest downside is you can't copy/paste it into a system without
sudo. I guess a more advanced version could have a checkbox to turn
on/off the sudo part, but I doubt it's worth going *that* far.

Whilst I don't object to the change, I do think it's important to note that the more likely issue is not that sudo isn't on the system, but that it's not configured.
 
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Magnus Hagander-2
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:07 AM Dave Page <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:05 AM Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 3:19 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dave Page <[hidden email]> writes:
>> > > For the "most likely to work following a standard OS install" option, I
>> > > think we probably should add sudo for CentOS/RHEL 7+, and remove if from
>> > > the Debian 9/10 instructions.
>> >
>> > My vote is to include sudo as a reminder that "this step needs root
>> > privilege".  If you don't have sudo, you have to implement that some
>> > other way, but you still need to do something.
>>
>> I've done this.
>>
>> The biggest downside is you can't copy/paste it into a system without
>> sudo. I guess a more advanced version could have a checkbox to turn
>> on/off the sudo part, but I doubt it's worth going *that* far.
>
>
> Whilst I don't object to the change, I do think it's important to note that the more likely issue is not that sudo isn't on the system, but that it's not configured.

That would be equally important on all platforms though. We're never
going to cover every case...

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sudo inconsistencies in download pages

Dave Page-7


On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:11 AM Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:07 AM Dave Page <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:05 AM Magnus Hagander <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 3:19 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dave Page <[hidden email]> writes:
>> > > For the "most likely to work following a standard OS install" option, I
>> > > think we probably should add sudo for CentOS/RHEL 7+, and remove if from
>> > > the Debian 9/10 instructions.
>> >
>> > My vote is to include sudo as a reminder that "this step needs root
>> > privilege".  If you don't have sudo, you have to implement that some
>> > other way, but you still need to do something.
>>
>> I've done this.
>>
>> The biggest downside is you can't copy/paste it into a system without
>> sudo. I guess a more advanced version could have a checkbox to turn
>> on/off the sudo part, but I doubt it's worth going *that* far.
>
>
> Whilst I don't object to the change, I do think it's important to note that the more likely issue is not that sudo isn't on the system, but that it's not configured.

That would be equally important on all platforms though. We're never
going to cover every case...

At least not without rolling back browser security 20 years or so... 

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com